Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#11

Post by plainOldText » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

Spoom wrote: post #6

patrickg_zill wrote: post #4

The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation. It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown.

> The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation. Could you be specific here (ideally with links)?

Here you go:

Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19818527

Oral contraceptive use in women changes preferences for male facial masculinity and is associated with partner facial masculinity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23528282

Edit: Oops, I posted studies linked to mate choice and not issues later in life as you requested. Arguably, choosing the wrong mate could be considered an issue in the long term, but I assume you referred specifically to medical ones.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#12

Post by ericand » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 7:49 AM UTC

jcoffland wrote: post #9

INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

> So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience. Yeah, but try turning it around. "Easy. For you to explain… for him to use." I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.

Some of the other examples were advertisements to doctors. Would you still feel this way if that were the case on this one?

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#13

Post by mdasen » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:00 AM UTC

While John Rock was involved in the development of the pill, calling him "the man behind the pill" is a bit disingenuous. Gregory Goodwin Pincus and Min Chueh Chang are the two that probably closer to that description.

It should also be noted that John Rock was a vocal proponent of birth control long before the pill. In 1931, he was the only Catholic physician to sign a petition asking Massachusetts to end its ban on birth control (including teaching about it).

However, it was in fact Pincus that suggested a 20-day regimen to Rock in their first collaborative study, specifically because withdrawal bleeding would reassure the women that they weren't pregnant.

When the pill was new, pregnancy tests weren't easily available at drug stores for cheap. The pill was approved as birth control in 1960 and it wasn't 1977 that at-home pregnancy tests were available in the United States. Having a period was an assurance that the pill was working.

Rock did a lot for the pill and was a huge force behind it. He did want the Catholic Church to see it as a variant of the rhythm method. However, the reason behind the withdrawal bleeding is more likely to be about the reassurance that one isn't pregnant. Given the lack of at-home pregnancy tests for the first 17 years of the pill's existence, withdrawal bleeding meant that you weren't pregnant.

Event today, many people think skipping periods is weird or unnatural without any religious overtone to it.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#14

Post by chris_mc » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:04 AM UTC

Latteland wrote: post #2

They give another reason that seems reasonable because the religious acceptance hope, that it would freak people out to stop having periods. That seems like a reasonable thing too. I know no one wants to have a period, but keeping close to natural behavior could make people accept it more easily.

Clearly, that didn't work, so it's not very reasonable.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#15

Post by adrianN » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:05 AM UTC

jcoffland wrote: post #9

INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

> So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience. Yeah, but try turning it around. "Easy. For you to explain… for him to use." I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.

Advertisements depict men as bumbling idiots all the time.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#16

Post by SamReidHughes » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:06 AM UTC

jcoffland wrote: post #9

INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

> So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience. Yeah, but try turning it around. "Easy. For you to explain… for him to use." I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.

There's a ton of advertising done that way. It sucks.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#17

Post by benj111 » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:26 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #15

jcoffland wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience. Yeah, but try turning it around. "Easy. For you to explain… for him to use." I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.

Advertisements depict men as bumbling idiots all the time.

In the UK (at least) this seems to now be banned

https://www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ad...

Edit: Wording

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#18

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:27 AM UTC

newnewpdro wrote: post #5

Two women I know suffer from Uterine Fibroids [1] and their doctors both have said in so many words "the uterus is good for two things, growing babies and growing tumors". Both of these women took hormonal birth controls for most of their lives, and learned only after being diagnosed with fibroids that hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer). They're both pissed, and have both been advised…

Can you link any science showing that "hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer)."?

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#19

Post by exactly » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:30 AM UTC

Exactly.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#20

Post by mdasen » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 8:37 AM UTC

INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

How come we've gone 60 years with these pills? There are women who have entire careers behind them in biology and medical science and we're still using these pills.

There have been a bunch of refinements to the pill as well as alternative options in the years since, but ultimately I think it's about finding something that works. It's hard finding new drugs and there would be a high bar for a new kind of pill.

Progestogen-only pills were first used in 1968. Vaginal rings (like the NuvaRing), contraceptive patches, implants, depo-provera, spermicidal sponges, and diaphragms have all been tried (plus IUDs which slightly pre-dates the pill).

Why haven't we had progress in all sorts of areas? Chemotherapy was developed before the pill and it's still widely used despite its side-effects. It doesn't mean that people aren't working hard on new cancer treatments. Discovering new ways of treating the human body is hard.